THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J. , HODGES and W

A TKI NS, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a ll y r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

A u gust 8, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 7 39

. CH A V EZ et al. v . H I LL.
W A T K I N S , J u d ge. D iana Mic hel C h a v ez and Sino e D e La R osa (the “ Plaintif f s” ) su ed Clayto n Co u nty Sherif

f V ic to r H ill ( the “Sherif

f ” ) f or d amages, alleging t h a t t h e y we r e i n j u r e d
in a m o t o r vehic le c o llisio n negligently c au s ed by o ne o f the Sherif f ’ s d ep u ties. The
trial co urt granted t he Sherif f’ s mo tio n to d ismiss the c o mp laint, f ind ing t hat it w as barred by so v ereign immu nity d u e t o the Plaintif f s’ f ailu re to timely s erv e the Sherif f

w ith an ante litem no tic e w ithin 1 2 mo nths af ter the c laim ac c ru ed o r bec a me p ayable.
On a p p eal, the Plaintif

f s a r g u e , inter alia, that the timely no tic e they sent to the
Co u nty w a s su f

f ic ient. A f t er the Plaintif

f s f iled their i nitial a p p ellate b rief , theSu p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia dec id ed C o lli n gto n v . C la yto n Co u n ty , 1 reso lv ing this issu e in the Plaintif

f s ’ f a v o r. A s exp lained f

u rther belo w, w e no w rev erse.

“ O n a p p eal, w e rev iew a trial c o u rt’ s d ec isio n to grant or d eny a mo tio n to d ismiss d e no v o. I n rev iew ing the grant o f a mo tio n to d ismiss, an ap p ellate c o u rt mu st

c o nstru e the p lead ings in the light mo st f av o rable t o the ap p ellant w ith all d o u bts

r e s o l v e d in the ap p ellant’ s f av or. ” 2 So v iew ed , the p lead ings sho w that, o n J u ly 1 1 , 201 8, the Plaintif

f s w e r e tr a v e l i ng o n a mo to rc y c le o n Highw ay 1 38 in J o nesbo ro . A c c o rd ing to the amend ed c o m p l a i n t , o n e o f the sherif f ’ s d ep u ties was d riv ing a

“ m ark ed p o lic e v ehic le” w hen he mad e an imp ro p er lane c hange into the Plaintif f s’
lane o f trav el and c ollid ed w ith the mo to rc y c le, inj u r ing the Plaintif f s. The Plaintif

f s sent a timely ante litem no t i c e to t he Clayto n Co unty B o ard o f
Co mmissio ners and v ario u s o ther c o u nty of f ic ials, in c l u d i n g the risk management d irec to r and the c ou nty a t t o rney. Fif teen mo nths a f

t e r the c o llisio n, the Plaintif f s sent an “ amend ed ” ante litem no tic e to the B o ard o f Co mmissio ners and the Sherif f

.

1 31 8 Ga. 29 (89 7 SE2d 36 1 ) (2024).

2 (Citatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n o m itted .) Ha rn ed v . Pi edmo n t Fo un da t

i o n , In c. , 356 Ga. A p p . 87 0, 87 1 (849 SE2d 7 26 ) (2020).
2I n granting t he Sherif f’ s mo tio n to d ismiss the c o mp laint, t he trial c o u rt relied

o n a line o f c ases f

ro m this Co u rt and f

o u nd that the timely serv ic e on the Co u nty w as inef f ec tu al bec au se it w as no t p r esented d irec tly u p o n the Sherif f

. This a p p eal f

o llo w s.
1

. I n their initial brief

, f iled bef o re the Su p reme Co urt i s s u e d i t s d ec isio n in
C o lli n gto n , the Plaintif

f s a rgu ed that OCGA § 36

- 1 1

- 1 d o es no t a p p ly to claims against sherif f s and that, ev en if it d o es, the no tic e sent to the Co u nty w a s su f f ic ient. I n
resp o nse, the Sherif

f ac k no w led ged the interv e ning C o l li n gto n c ase. OCGA § 36

- 1 1

- 1 p ro v id es: “ A ll c laim s a g ainst c o u nties m u st be p resented

w ithin 1 2 m o nths af

ter they ac c ru e o r bec o me p ayable o r the same ar e b arred , p ro v id ed that mino rs o r o ther p erso ns labo ring u nd er d isabilities shall be allo w ed 1 2

mo nths af ter the remo v al o f

the d isability to p resent their c laims. ”
I n C o lli n gto n , the Su p reme Co u rt of Geo rgia held that “ of f ic ial- c ap ac ity c laims against a c o unty sherif

f f or a d ep u ty’ s a lleged ly negl i g e n t u s e of a co u nty- o w ned

v ehic le are c laims against the co u nty itself , and thu s, the p resentment requ irement o f
OCGA § 36

- 1 1

- 1 ap p lies to su c h c laims[. ]” 3 H ow ev er, the Co u rt f urther held that “ a

c laimant’ s d u ty u nd er OCGA § 36

- 1 1

- 1 is satisf ied by p resenting no t ic e to the

3 31 8 Ga. at 37 (2) (a).
3ap p ro p riate co unty go v e rning au tho rity o f her o ffi ci a l

- c ap ac ity claims against a c o u nty

sherif f f o r the negligent u se of a c o v e red m o to r v e h i c le. ” 4 The Su p reme Co urt
exp lic itly o v erru led this Co u rt’ s line o f c ases that held o therw ise. 5
H ere, the Plaintif

f s p resented no tic e o f their o f f ic ial c ap ac ity c laims a gainst the
Sherif f to the Co u nty. Und er C

o lli n gto n , this s atisf

ied their d u ty u nd e r OCGA § 36

- 1 1

-
1

. 6 W e thu s rev erse the trial c o u rt’ s d ismissal o f A p p ellants’ c o m p laint a nd remand
the c ase t o the trial c o u rt to c o nd u c t fu r t her pro c eed ings no t inc o nsiste n t w i t h this

o p inio n. Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. D o

yle, P. J. , a n d Ho d

ges , J. , c o n cu r .

4 31 8 Ga. at 37 (2) (b).

5 I d

. a t 38 (2) ( b). The Co u rt sp e c if ic ally o v erru led this Co urt’ s d ec isio ns i n Mo a ts v . Men dez , 349 Ga. A pp . 81 1 , 81 4 (2) (824 SE2d 8 0 8 ) ( 2 0 1 9); and D a v i s v . Mo rri so n , 344 Ga. A p p . 527 , 532 (2) ( 81 0 SE2d 6 49 ) (201 8); see also Mo rn ey v . Ki ker , 37 1 Ga. A p p . 804 (_

_ SE2d _

_ ) (2024) (rev ersing d ismissal in light o f C o lli n gto n ).

6 See C o lli n gto n , 31 8 Ga. at 38 (3).
4